Saturday, February 4, 2012

Georgia Judge's Ruling Serves to Pervert and Corrupt the Office of POTUS!

For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge in Georgia has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.

The Supreme Court has defined “natural-born-citizen” as a person with two U.S. citizen parents, and Obama admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that address the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That Supreme Court case states:

‘The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners’.

While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”

The president’s lawyer boycotted the proceeding -- triggered by citizenship challenges brought by a group of so-called “birthers” -- calling it “baseless, costly and unproductive.” Lawyers for the challengers said the president should be held in contempt for not complying with a subpoena.

Judge Michael Malihi, who recently refused to quash the subpoena summoning Obama, never addressed the request. He cut off another lawyer when he began to complain that Obama’s no-show amounted to “contempt for the judicial branch.”

Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican, said law required him to refer the challenges. “If you and your client choose to suspend your participation ... please understand that you do so at your own peril,” the secretary wrote.

So the case goes forward.

The following testimony and what was brought into court evidence as outlined by The National Patriot By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012:

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strunk.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Vogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped but layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Soetoro, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leaves the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

The Judge's Verdict:

President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth.

With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification papers, Malihi said he found the evidence "unsatisfactory" and "insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."

A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation and "none ... provided persuasive testimony," Malihi wrote.

Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen," Malihi wrote. Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.

"By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski," Malihi wrote. "This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing."

IMHO:

This judge’s perverted ruling has taken the POTUS above the law and has emboldened Obama to ignore the laws in America and be rewarded for his lawless actions.

This ruling continues to promote the Liberal/Progressive/Communist/Marxist/Fascist political ideology and political partisanship of the Obama Administration that has corrupted our political institutions, our laws, the lives of Americans and even the rulings of the Supreme Court.

In essence, it serves Obama’s promise to transform America and destroy the U.S. Constitution and American Liberty.

8 comments:

It's really to bad that this judge took in to account of the Indiana court ruling. That courts ruling was based on the 14th amendment, which was established in 1868, and ruled "U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ."). In Minor, the Court observed that:At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also".... Problem with that is the Minor ruling was based on the framers "familiarity" of BRITISH common law, which they reject it. So how could the "framers" understand that the 'all persons born.... are citizens by virtue of the 14th sec 1' when they rejected British Common Law and more so the 14th didn't exist for another 120 years? It was the intent of the 14th to give slaves instant and permanent citizenship. Had nothing to do with the Presidency, too.My thinking this judge was paid a visit by someone in the US Government to come out with this BS ruling!EVEN when the defendant and his lawyer never showed up!!!

Yep, that was the first think that popped in to my mind when I read this judges ruling, too. But instead he based it on the Indiana ruling, which the Indiana ruling pointed to the USSC ruling, which THAT judge got it wrong, as I pointed to in my comment.I smell Government interference!

Mark, I'm not a judge with years of experience at the bench and neither are you.So why is it within a couple of hours you and I came up with this same conclusion?This judge is dirty!He is an enemy to the court, to the law and to the state!

You need to read the following paragraph. Only citizenship of the plaintiff, not natural-born status was required to resolve the case.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

To go further "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens" Obama father wasn't. IMO this sentence in the ruling IS to consider all children of citizen parents a relevant factor in the courts decision to uphold the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Words From Our Past

Conservative Alternative to Facebook

* 'LIKE' DEFENDERS of PROSPERITY ON FACEBOOK*

Wise Man Quote

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."-Samuel Adams

FOX News

Bloggers Rights

Fair Use Notification

This website contains some copyrighted material which in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is being distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work including such use by reproduction in copies or recordings or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is NOT an infringement.